ArticleCureus2025
Challenging the Efficacy of Routine Antibiotic Skin Testing: Insights From Two Cases of Anaphylaxis.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This series presents two cases of anaphylaxis following the administration of beta-lactam antibiotics, piperacillin-tazobactam, and cefotaxime in patients who had previously shown negative skin test results. A 32-year-old woman with no history of allergies developed anaphylaxis 15 minutes after receiving piperacillin-tazobactam, despite a negative intradermal test. Similarly, a 48-year-old woman with no prior allergic response experienced anaphylaxis within 10 minutes of cefotaxime administration even after a negative intradermal test. Both patients were successfully treated with epinephrine, fluids, and corticosteroids with close monitoring of further complications. These cases highlight the limitations of preemptive skin testing for antibiotics, a practice still commonly followed in certain healthcare settings in India, despite growing concerns about its predictive reliability and lack of standardization. Unstandardized methods of skin testing, as commonly practiced in India, have poor sensitivity and are unreliable for predicting drug-related anaphylaxis. Furthermore, even small intravenous test doses can trigger severe anaphylactic reactions, underscoring the need for caution during antibiotic allergy testing. According to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) guidelines, skin testing is recommended only in suspected cases of antibiotic allergy, with diagnostic algorithms tailored to the nature of the reaction. However, these guidelines are not universally followed, particularly in regions where standardized testing resources and training are limited. These cases emphasize the need for standardized indications and protocols for skin testing in India, along with the adaptation of international guidelines to suit India's unique clinical and healthcare context, potentially serving as a model for other resource-limited countries that face similar challenges.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.